Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Knight (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Knight

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG for notability and WP:V as facts can't be verified via non-existent references, which is particularly troubling for a BLP. He has written several books, and you can find those books on Amazon and on Google books, but I don't find sources talking about the person. The ghits for this name are unrelated persons. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that while this is the 2nd AFD for this subject title name, this is actually the first AFD for this particular person. Both are unrelated persons that just have the same name. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous publications. Meets WP:CREATIVE. Nitalake (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Specifically which part of WP:CREATIVE?

1 The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

2 The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

3 The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

4 The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

So which part does he fulfill that can be verified? Having several "publications" isn't a criteria for inclusion using any Wikipedia guideline, because you can publish any drivel on Amazon.com for free, in a few minutes, and call it a book. That is why we require verification by reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete publishers are not notable themselves. for books like this, we would need either publication from a major publisher, or third party confirmation that they are used by a large educational audience, as they could easily be self published. no indication of notability from the material provided here. I couldnt find any obvious supporting sources in a google search. fails WP:CREATIVE. his CV doesnt meet WP:BIO either.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Dennis and above. The person defiantly fails the NN test. Jab843 (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.